August 31, 2017, 10:26:31 am

@Ub3rgames with your changes to siegestone placement rules it is much harder now to place a siegestone in a way to even partialy cover it from cannon fire (less good spots to do so). Also small siegestone has not much heatlh. This leads to super easy hamlet defenses (they look like they are easier than city defences - was this intended?) and promotes mindless tactics (do whatever just hit a siegestone few times, repeat).

Not sure if there will be changes to siege mechanics but if not, I'd suggest to reintroduce second small siegestone for hamlets.

Road map ends on watch towers and says there will be more than one iterations. Does not even say if we will get anything other than first iteration. There is no way to know what changes to sieges will be made with first iteration. This was a simple suggestion that if they do not change siege rules they should reintroduce second siegestone. GTFO.

@Ub3rgamesmanaged to take the fun out of sieging, by adding insane placement requirements. Countless locations have been rendered non-functional and the only option is to place stones undefended out in the open where they are just easy targets for cannons, with no way to defend from them besides pushing those very cannons and rendering your stone(s) vulnerable regardless.

It heavily promotes cheesy alt tactics and is detrimental to the idea that sieges should revolve around combat and not Alt2Win.

Not to mention the timers remains as tedious as ever. With 21 hours until live instead of 24 hours, meaning sieges always have to be dropped 3 hours past primetime, this conflicts heavily with protection windows and makes sieges go live much earlier than they should be. And a full hour of boredom waiting at a siegestone(s) that either receives zero fights or one fight at most since the easier thing to do is snipe the stones.

To me, there are easy solutions to be found in simple numbers tweaking.

This whole thread is because they lost the Oethrain siege by failing to properly defend their siegestone. They'd rolled us as the defenders easily. So we deliberately bated them out away from the stone. And in their thirst for kills they forgot to defend the stone.

And as Prometheus pointed out, changes are coming. No point spending time on pointless coding before then.

This whole thread is because they lost the Oethrain siege by failing to properly defend their siegestone. They'd rolled us as the defenders easily. So we deliberately bated them out away from the stone. And in their thirst for kills they forgot to defend the stone.

And as Prometheus pointed out, changes are coming. No point spending time on pointless coding before then.

So hamlets were supposed to be defendable by a small force, that was the intent anyway. Even if you could hide your stone from canon fire, with the current class fall you couldn't stop a mounted rush to spike the siege stone.

Cities have a bit more freedom with 2 stones with a larger health pool, those you have to ninja with canons.

So the real issue isn't just making hamlets easier for a large group to take, but overseeing the siege system all together. It isn't great.

Also, we don't have warhulks which is the thing you use to guard siege stones. WHERE THE HELL ARE WARHULKS!!!???